September 16, 2009

Lots of people who voted for Obama believed that his election would reflect the extent to which Americans had moved beyond racism. That was part of why some people voted for him. Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism. Racism is revolting, but so is the notion that we aren't allowed to criticize a President!

Jimmy Carter's supremely sleazy accusation requires a solid, sound rebuke. It is an effort to place the President of the United States beyond criticism.

Imagine if, before last year's election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

1. I would have viewed that argument itself as racist. If that is really true, I would have said, then it means that we have to vote against the candidate because he is black, since it is not acceptable to have a President who can't be criticized.

2. I would also have said: It is racist to say that it's racist to criticize a black President, because you are being patronizing and you are saying that a black person needs to be coddled and protected in some special way that doesn't apply to white people.

Jimmy Carter is doing something that, before the election, he would not have revealed that he planned to do. It is a low and despicable political move that he should be ashamed of.

And since demanding apologies is all the rage, let me say that I would like the wizened old husk of a former President to beg our forgiveness.

Dogwood -- 12% of the population is African-American. If Rasmussen's sampling was any good at all that's exactly what you'd expect.

Carter is irrelevant, and has been for decades. A dear old friend was a classmate of Carter's at the Naval Academy (1946). He noted that as early as their class' 25th reunion in 1971 Carter was ostracized by nearly all his classmates.

Even before his political prominence, those men trained in leadership correctly had Carter pegged as the dithering weakling we all came to know during his presidency and afterwards.

Jimmy Carter was an incompetent president. He lasted one term only because we don't have a parliamentary system. After leaving office, he has done some good works, specifically with Habitat for Humanity. We should listen to what he says only if he speaks about housing for the poor; otherwise we should simply ignore him.

I don't think long-distance psychoanalysis works even if you're a psychoanalyst, and not a peanut farmer/"nuclear physicist."

Wilson may not be free of racism, but I don't see that racism is motivating his health care position. So that leaves the lack of inhibition that allowed him to cry out during the President's speech.

Let us say that America had elected white liberal Dennis Kucinich. He would be getting the same amount of pushback from the right as Obama is seeing. I believe that Wilson would have said "You lied" to a President Kucinich.

Imagine if, before last year's election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

Glenn Reynolds didn't argue it, he feared it, as did many of the contributors to NRO's the Corner blog.

The fear surfaced when Obama threw the race card at Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton! WTF? I mean, it was bad enough that he called his white grandmother "typical", implying "typical white racist," but to impugn Clinton really took the cake.

The conversation continued right up till the election. You just didn't want to hear it. Oh, no, you thought, Obama would never do that. He wants us to move beyond race.

The fact is, Obama is an Affirmative Action president. The only reason he was the Democrat's candidate is because he is black. A white man with his credentials and experience would have been told to stay in the Senate and get some real experience under his belt before attempting a run at the presidency.

President Carter disgraces the office he held--too bad impeachment cannot be done retroactively--As a USMA grad I can only wish the USNA classes did a better job weeding out nutcases like carter. (of course, they continue to beat our butts in football)

The only reason he was the Democrat's candidate is because he is black.

Obama was the most appealing and probably the best candidate. Hillary's showing she needs to stay behind the scenes -- she can't even handle being Secretary of State. Richardson is suffering from some scandal. Who would that leave?

Romney was the best qualified candidate for the GOP, yet somehow they ended up with McCain. Decades of Senate service didn't make McCain a better candidate than he was twenty years ago, by the way. Was McCain picked because Republicans like old people?

I don't understand this part of your comment:"Wilson may not be free of racism..."Ok, so you are not calling him a racist but are leaving open the possibility that he might be one.Do you think this is a fair or sincere way to have a discussion/conversation with people who may have a different opinion in some subjects?It's very nice of you not to think that what Mr. Wilson's position is motivated by race, but by leaving that window wide open, you are silently agreeing with Mr. Carter's assertion.

Joan, as much as it sounds racist, I think history will prove you right. There was no reason a man with a resume this weak should ever have become the President of the United States.

I believe he ultimately won the election because many non-Black people (Liberal, Independent and yes, even Conservatives) proudly cast their vote for him because of his unique story, built largely on his race. They believed that it was the time to elect a black man POTUS and that it would demonstrate how far America has come. There were many other factors in play - W's massive unpopularity, Sarah Palin as a polarizing figure, the economy, etc. In the end though, I believe his race was a greater contributing factor to his appeal than anything. His election made voters feel good about themselves.

I wonder what percentage of those people who now oppose some of his policies are regretting their decision?

"Jimmy Carter is doing something that, before the election, he would not have revealed that he planned to do."

I think that's giving him too much credit. It's possible, though, that before the election media gatekeepers would not have revealed what Carter said.

I wanted to say... I dislike ragging on Carter even though I sincerely wish he'd shut up. I think that he's a caring person and he's done a lot of sincere good, or seems to have done so on local levels and I hate to have that taken away, but the man really should never have been put in authority over anything at all.

Maybe he cares *too* much and it's made him gullible? And it's pitiful and sad for those who suffer under the rule of those he enables. He's supposedly respected around the world to oversee elections and various things that *matter* and he can manage to come away from a place like freaking Darfur and report that the government isn't criminal or murdering its own people.

In any case, I think he'd the perfect poster child for why valuing CARING over a more rational assessment of policies and situations is actually evil.

Since we are all being racists, I'll contribute. (Once you start that you no longer have to worry or judge based on facts)

Anyway I think many people viewed Obama, the candidate, as the path to assauge their white guilt, about what all of others whites have done. When he turns out to be less than fantisized, the reaction is to call racism, rather than admit their own stupidity.

It's important for bigots to be able to speak their minds, so their racist sentiments can be exposed. I hope he continues to tell us what he thinks about race, it could be very enlightening, just not in the way he assumes.

"And since demanding apologies is all the rage, let me say that I would like the wizened old husk of a former President to beg our forgiveness."

I demand an apology. Using the word "wizened" suggests Pres. James Earl Carter might in some ways have some wisdom or be wise (I realize the definition only states the word means 'dried up', but given the similar root as wisdom and wise, there is a connotative connection between the words that a substitute word wouldn't bring).

Obviously, that's far from the truth, and represents a gross distortion of fact.

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. And each time you could see the shocked disbelief on their faces when it happened.

There was also all of the pre-emptive race card playing that went on about how people were going to attack him for his race, how he didn't look like the guys on money, how everyone was supposed to look for and expect these racially motivated things to happen. Getting offended at being called a racist by proxy and for things that hadn't even happened yet was seen as proof and presented as proof by a variety of commentators that Obama was right about what people *would* do.

"The conversation continued right up till the election. You just didn't want to hear it. Oh, no, you thought, Obama would never do that. He wants us to move beyond race."

To defend Althouse and others... campaigns are supposed to be a little bit rough and tumble. And certainly once he was *president* he'd be trying to act presidential. Right? And he'd be secure. He won! And it would be time to get down to work. So expecting a toning down of that rhetoric instead of a ramping up was not an *illogical* thing to hope for.

I don't think that even those of us in the "I told you so" chorus predicted the never-ending campaign.

When I helped vote Carter out of office in 1980 (my first presidential election), it wasn't because I was a racist white person; it was because he was an incompetent fool. My opinion of the old buzzard hasn't changed in 29 years. I won't go to Plains to piss on his grave when he dies, but only because I don't like standing in long lines.

Similarly, my opposition to Obama is because I also consider him to be an incompetent fool, and one who is dangerously radical and surrounds himself with other dangerous radicals. The color of his skin is irrelevant. It's his policies with which I disagree.

"Rialby: I wonder what percentage of those people who now oppose some of his policies are regretting their decision?"

A large number--that's why you've seen such a drop in his popularity numbers. Huge numbers of folks (including Ms. Althouse?), loving the idea of what electing an African-American would say about the country (and them) convinced themselves that a community organizer from the South side of Chicago wasn't really as far left as every scrap of evidence indicated.

Imagine if, before last year's election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

1. I would have viewed that argument itself as racist. If that is really true, I would have said, then it means that we have to vote against the candidate because he is black, since it is not acceptable to have a President who can't be criticized.

There's a flaw in your logic. Just because critics will be called racist does not mean that the President can't be criticized. It just means you have to be prepared for that response.

The only reason he was the Democrat's candidate is because he is black. A white man with his credentials and experience would have been told to stay in the Senate and get some real experience under his belt before attempting a run at the presidency.

Well they said that to a white woman who actually had more experience than he did.

I like Ed Morissey's argument better than this one, although I am about to restate it slightly:

There is more evidence that Jimmy Carter is an anti-semite when it comes to isreal, than that Joe Wilson is a racist for criticizing Obama. So as a matter of logic, if Joe Wilson is a racist, Jimmy Carter is an anti-semite.

And let's not forget that recently Carter's book "peace not apartheid" got a glowing review... from Osama bin Laden.

And don't get me started on Maureen Dowd.

This all reminds me of a conversation i had in constitutional law, where a teacher asked us to try to explain what was racist about a judge's statement. A classmate said, "well, i just picture him speaking with his southern accent."

And I, a yankee with a southern accent (long story), piped up and say, "Hey!" I kept my tone light, but i had a point.

So he corrected himself, "a redneck accent."

So for comedy's sake, i said, "Hey!"

As a yankee who has lived in the south enough to pick up a southern accent, i can say, neither part of the country has a monopoly on racism. Malcolm X made a similar point, at a point in time when Southerners were much more militant. He said the Northern racist is like a fox, and a southern racist is like a wolf. The wolf makes no attempt to disguise itself; you know its a wolf, and you know it is your enemy. but the fox fools you into thinking it is not a threat at all, and thus you don't realize it is a threat until you are half devoured. (note, the metaphor is not actually in line with what happens in nature, but whatever.)

Of course since then all open racists, for the most part, have departed the field and all you have are "foxes" in the Malcolm X sense. but his point is still salient.

Anyway, Carter continues to be our worst ex-president ever. and he sucked pretty bad as a president.

You would think he could notice the pattern. Americans give liberals power. Liberals show america what they do when they have power. Americans revolt and elect conservatives. then eventually americans forget how bad liberals were in power and let them have power again. and thus the cycle repeats itself. Carter was part of it, so was Clinton (he was a liberal until he lost congress), and Obama is about to get the ugly side of that trend. So how can we say that racism is evident given the apparently similar treatment. Each president is sui generis, of course, but to the extent that we can notice a trend, obama is fitting neatly into it.

The culture of affirmative action is a major part of the reason we are hearing the nonsense that criticisms of Obama are motivated by racism.

Affirmative action policies displace fairness with unfair preferences for "protected" groups. Beneficiaries of affirmative therefore action have a strong vested interest in its continuation--ask any appplicant to a competitive college, law, or medical school.

But the continuation of affirmative action policies requires a victim and an oppressor. Thus, the continuation of affirmative action requires not an end to racism, but its perpetuation in the myths and narratives of the culture. And one of the best ways to do this is by accusing white folks of racism.

Those who benefit from afirmative action literally cannot afford to not accuse others of a pervasive racism. And at this point in our history, the truth is that racism among blacks against whites is much, much more extensive than white racism about blacks. Blacks often don't even recognize it. This is why Obama could sit for 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright's racist rants and think it was no big deal. Because in the black community, it is no big deal.

The advantage of the discussion we are having now--and of Obama's election as president--is that it opens up the secret, hermetically sealed racism of the black community, and its unwarranted sense of special entitlements and dispensations, to the frictive and dissolving effects of free speech. But expect the beneficiaries of affirmative action and of the mythos of racism to scream bloody murder.

Jimmy Carter is the bigger jackass, hands down. He's been a jackass since before Mr. West was born. He's forgotten more about jackassism than Mr. West will ever know. In fact, Jimmy Carter is the quintessential jackass.

"I distinctly remember Ari Fleischman, as Bush's press secretary, sternly warning the media to be careful what they say about the president.

A also remember a deafening silence from the right about the implications of that."

That's because you don't see the context at all. It was not, in any way, a suggestion that the President not be criticized about anything by anyone. The "right" criticized him constantly over a wide range of things.

People could die. Newsweek killed real human people by not being "careful" when they reported something that was an outright lie. They didn't check or even consider the "facts", they weren't careful, they didn't think about what it meant.

It was all about finding another anti-Bush story. Was an anti-Bush story worth lives? And it wasn't even true!

I really would like to see you equate the demand to not be rude or criticize the President about anything on pain of being slandered as a racist to an admonition to take care that myopic lying about the President could flare into violence or get our soldiers killed.

Oh, wait... that was one of the criticisms of Wilson. Congressman Hank Johnson is of the opinion that allowing rudeness to a black man it would usher in the white sheets of the worst racism and violence in our country. (Apparently despite the near immediate apology.)

Q: Has the President had any communication with Representative Cooksey regarding his comments on Sikh Americans? And does he have a message for the lawmakers and members of his party in particular about this issue?...Q: As Commander-in-Chief, what was the President's reaction to television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our armed forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed (sic) are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?...A: I'm aware of the press reports about what he's said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate. And that's why—there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party—they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

[The Cooksey question referred to a comment he had made in committee about he would perceive someone with a "diaper on his head".]

Fleischer's word choice of "watch what they say, [...] do" was unfortunate and too easy to take out of context. At a minimum, however, he was talking about inciteful speech about others and not about criticizing the president.

In Georgia we are quite familiar with Jimmy. He has a strange belief that he is always noble and inherently exalted above all the other people he interracts with. Maybe he is. But we see him as a rural Georgia Baptist oligarch from a community where it must be presumed that his morality highly exceeds that of all others. He did pick the right side of the de-segragation issues in the 1960s, but that is yesterday's issue. He once again is trying to trump everyone else with that morality issue. IMO the failures of Obama to do a semi-competant job as President is shaking up the Powers Behind the Throne, and Jimmy is being rushed in by them to stop the bleeding by placing the old "southerners are Racists" prop onto the stage. When that fails to work this time, we may see some unusual independent moves out of this President Obama, whom I predict cannot accept that he is not loved and trusted, just as Jimmy cannot accept that any one but him is worthy of the morality award.

(Please forgive me for re-posting this corrected version, but I couldn't stand the typo which made the meaning harder to get.)

The culture of affirmative action is a major part of the reason we are hearing the nonsense that criticisms of Obama are motivated by racism.

Affirmative action policies displace fairness with unfair preferences for "protected" groups. Beneficiaries of affirmative action therefore have a strong vested interest in its continuation--ask any appplicant to a competitive college, law, or medical school.

But the continuation of affirmative action policies requires a victim and an oppressor. Thus, the continuation of affirmative action requires not an end to racism, but its perpetuation in the myths and narratives of the culture. And one of the best ways to do this is by accusing white folks of racism.

Those who benefit from afirmative action literally cannot afford to not accuse others of a pervasive racism. And at this point in our history, the truth is that racism among blacks against whites is much, much more extensive than white racism about blacks. Blacks often don't even recognize it. This is why Obama could sit for 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright's racist rants and think it was no big deal. Because in the black community, it is no big deal.

The advantage of the discussion we are having now--and of Obama's election as president--is that it opens up the secret, hermetically sealed racism of the black community, and its unwarranted sense of special entitlements and dispensations, to the frictive and dissolving effects of free speech. But expect the beneficiaries of affirmative action and of the mythos of racism to scream bloody murder

Senator Strom Thurmond was still a segregationist when young Addison interned for him in 1968. Someone free of racism would have been repelled, and picked another mentor.

Hmmm...so you're saying his views haven't changed in the last 41 years? Ok. By that same measure I'll stick with viewing Obama as a Marxist since he admitted being drawn to them and other radicals when in college, a mere 25 years ago.

1) Joe Wilson is no racist. He is just one of many South Carolinians who lionize Strom Thurmond, who ran for president on the platform of preserving segregation. Wilson also defended Strom Thurmond against the terrible smear that Strom had fathered an illegitimate daughter with his black maid, which turned out to be true but whatever. Wilson also belongs (? Or belonged— he won’t comment now) to the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, a “patriotic” organization which has definitely splintered into neo-secessionism and defending slavery as a benign institution. But no matter, “associations” of this type shouldn’t matter. Joe Wilson is no racist. He may be a wee wee bit “traditionalist” in the sense that he loves the confederate battle flag because of its “heritage.” Look, I’m from South Carolina, and I’ll be the first one to tell you that loving the confederate flag isn’t JUST about hating black people. But, for some number of people, it definitely is about hating black people. But whatever! Let’s move on.

2) Rush Limbaugh is no racist. He is simply claiming that the election of a black president has created a permissive environment in which black people can beat up white people. This is a clear correlation, it’s totally logical, and there’s nothing racist about it! He even has a black guy on his show that gave him permission to say things like this, so how could it be stoking race hatred in the country????

3) The Republican party has a problem. They are so not racist that soon they will not be able to get anyone darker than a brown paper bag to vote for them. Call it the reverse bag-test. If this “political party” ever wants to win anymore elections, it should note that stoking white grievance will only bring them votes from aggrieved white people. The “backlash” of which so many here speak will lash all the way to solid perma-minority representation across the southeast of the U.S. Good luck.

Jimmy Carter is doing something that, before the election, he would not have revealed that he planned to do.

What, accusing critics of Obama of racism? I know we're all outraged, etc. etc., but is this really coming as a surprise to anyone? Didn't we see exactly this tactic used repeatedly and without shame, both in the primary contest against Clinton and in the general election against McCain? There's no reason at all to be surprised that the first rebuttal to every criticism is a scream of "RACIST!"

I will take that on. I think some Birthers may be racist. But there are others who are 1) just hoping beyond all hope that they've found the key to removing Obama from office, 2) of the belief that because Obama may be truly a citizen of another country (Britain), he may have dual loyalties.

"If this “political party” ever wants to win anymore elections, it should note that stoking white grievance will only bring them votes from aggrieved white people. The “backlash” of which so many here speak will lash all the way to solid perma-minority representation across the southeast of the U.S. Good luck."

And yet you don't think that stoking black grievance has any negative affects at all.

Silly Jimmy Carter. How could he think such a thing?! We all know that there is no racism in this country. Anything that sounds racist is, as the good professor has informed us, obviously done by pro-Obama people!

Stunning, Jimmy Carter opened his mouth and something stunningly stupid came out of it. This isn't new, this is the old tried and true leftist smear. It just has a new face and it let's it's proxies do the dirty work. Putting the president beyond rebuke or even criticism is only shocking if you let it be. You've had to see this coming and if you didn't then you really don't know the type of people that support this President and how he inspires it in them to say and do these stupid things.

If this “political party” ever wants to win anymore elections, it should note that stoking white grievance will only bring them votes from aggrieved white people. The “backlash” of which so many here speak will lash all the way to solid perma-minority representation across the southeast of the U.S. Good luck."

And if the majority of people wish to opt for a form of government in which we all get cradle to grave services including those who don't belong here, paid for by the taxpayer than so be it. Just keep in mind that sooner or later you'll find out that there aren't enough paying into the system to give everyone the Golden Goose. You can only squeeze so much from the haves before they simply stop paying into the system.

The goodwill that still surrounds Carter for some and that allows him to pontificate in this way, unchallenged, is a result of hundreds of journalists parroting a false PR line for the past 25 years, that Carter is "America's greatest ex-president."

I don't think Bill Clinton would agree that Carter was such a great ex-president. He hated Carter's meddling. Carter's book output has been one long narcissistic spew, (How my mother made me great. How my church made me great. How my peanut farm made me great.) Whereas the books produced by Richard Nixon during his ex-presidency had wisdom and value, and the good works of Clinton since he left office have made a far bigger impact.

Saying that some - perhaps too much - of the opposition to President Obama is driven by racisms is not, of course, the same as saying, as Mr. Carter did, that the 'overwhelming' cause of the opposition is racism.

Point 1 can be fairly debated and, in my view, is correct.

Point 2 is an asinine assertion made by naifs, ideologues or fools.

Or in the case of this petty small mean little creep, Jimmy Carter. all three.

I think the "post-racial" aspect of electing Obama was for many people less about some feel-goodist idiocy than about his explicit promise that his would be a presidency that moves beyond the black/white racial divide and take on issues without the filter of identity politics. A lot of reasonable Republicans and moderates bought that pitch wholesale, and it was a great pitch convincingly presented by the smooth-talk delivery of the candidate. Next to him, McCain had to know that he was just a cardboard cut-out opponent.

So now, a few months in, the magic is gone, the emperor's clothes are tattered, the bag of tricks is empty, and the President and his men are reduced to catcalling racial accusations at their policy opponents. God forbid this guy and his "Smartest Administration Ever (TM)" bone up on policy and actually learn to argue substance with their opponents... Alas, calling everyone else a racist is much easier and like BF Skinner's box, has that little buzz deep in the cerebrum that adds a thrill. That and blaming everything (even the consequences of your own actions) on someone else. Say what you will about Bush 43, at least that one took the whole "responsibility era" rhetoric seriously as applied to himself, and never sought to shift blame for what happened on his administration's watch, even when it would've been easy and accurate (see, e.g., New Orleans state and local gov't's handling of Katrina, and compare to Mississippi's handling of same) to do so.

It's really too bad. This is why I have often said the first black Democratic president should've been Harold Ford Jr. He's at least got a track record as a reasonably non-ideological guy. No more stealth candidates from either party, please.

Well Montaigne, if we get to the point where all I am doing is handing my paycheck over to the Federal government then its no longer the America I grew up in. If someone can explain to my why I should work harder only to give the goverment a higher percentage of my labor than by all means, convince away.

The immorality of segregation that itself arose alongside arose from a refusal to educate and employ black men in the better jobs (Especially Union Jobs)since 1880 up to 1980 has been radically removed and is now only a distant memory. To admit that truth does tend to re-awaken the sleeping giant of 80% of the American people who are not African-Americans, but who have always had to Prove they are not racists. Electing Barak Obama President has shifted that burden of proof. Therefore the need to prove non-racism no longer weakens our thinking. Thank you Barak. Now lets get back to the issue of governing ourselves as free men in a free country and not as serfs under socialist managers.

But like you always say - If this meme is patently absurd, why can't it be killed with simple facts and reason?

Because liberals like you don't deal in the realm of simple facts and reason. I mean if Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro were racists in the eyes of Obama supporters, what chance does a conservative have? I mean geez garage, you were a Clinton supporter, didn't those accusations rankle you at all or did you just take them as standard political posturing just like they are now?

Rialby:FLD - What about Joe Biden? He was good enough to be the VP, why couldn't he have been your Presidential candidate?

Thanks for a great laugh.

Have you noticed the near-complete media blackout of Biden? He's a non-person now. He doesn't even exist. If he's ever covered, we're never allowed to hear what he says. In fact, I believed (and said as much at the time) that Obama's selection of Biden as his running mate proved he wasn't fit for the office of the presidency. Seriously, does not the idea of Biden in the Oval Office send ice water running through your veins? But the media went to work polishing Biden's reputation and burying his gaffes while they went full-bore after Palin, and no one really thought much about the fact that they were electing Biden every bit as much as they were electing Obama.

But hey, they put a black man in the White House, just to show what a great nation we are, so everything's OK. /sarcasm

Seriously, does not the idea of Biden in the Oval Office send ice water running through your veins?

To tell the truth, I think Biden would make a better president than Obama, on every metric but one. Unfortunately, that one is public speaking, which is kind of an important part of the job. Biden would be a disaster on that front, given his inability to stay on message, indeed, his inability to control himself from making things up, cracking stupid jokes, and just saying whatever pops into his head at the moment.

But all the same, he took his business, in the Senate, more seriously than most -- unlike the other Democrats, his Iraq plan (partition) wasn't infused with magical thinking. More recently, on the Iran elections, he appears to have been much better attuned to the moral dimensions of the situation than the President was -- leaks from within the administration suggested strongly that both Clinton and Biden opposed the President's obtuse equivocation.

So on decision-making and so on, I actually do have more confidence in Biden's judgment and maturity than I have in Obama's. Unfortunately, Obama completely outclasses him in terms of public speaking and the appearance of "gravitas."

Perhaps everything is hunky-dory north of the Mason Dixon Line, but down here in the South race is still an issue for too many people.

I don't know what motivated Wilson but what I do know is there is a sizable and vocal minority down here who don't believe that any black man should be president. So on that point Carter's right. It's sad, but it's true.

It doesn't matter what Obama says because to you, everything Jimmy Carter says has been fed to him by Obama; everything Rev. Wright has said is also what Obama thinks; and every time a black person in America does something you don't like, it's because of Obama.

@Monty, you're really obsessed with Sons of Confederate Veterans. Are they like the Illuminati? Their web site is here and, quite frankly, their membership requirements are pretty much the same as for the DAR (except that the DAR wants women whose ancestors fought in the American Revolution, not men whose ancestors fought for the South in the Civil War).

@miller, one of my favorite books is Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson. One of his lines really resonates here: "The Democrats fought back with their tried and true weapon of racism." Except that Northern Democrats during the Civil War were the party defending slavery and they tried to use the spectre of Black suffrage and the supposed evils of miscegnation against Abraham Lincoln and his Republicans.

The tactic backfired against the Democrats in the elections of 1863 and 1864, and I suspect that their current mirror image tactic will backfire in the elections of 2009 and 2010.

@Monty, you're really obsessed with Sons of Confederate Veterans. Are they like the Illuminati?

Well, it's a well known fact, Big Mike, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. And each time you could see the shocked disbelief on their faces when it happened.

There was also all of the pre-emptive race card playing that went on about how people were going to attack him for his race, how he didn't look like the guys on money, how everyone was supposed to look for and expect these racially motivated things to happen.

Yes, this got set up a long time ago as a tactic. Now, we should all be free to ignore it!!

And certainly once he was *president* he'd be trying to act presidential. Right? And he'd be secure. He won! And it would be time to get down to work.

Right. I think the "i told you so's" are a bit unfair. Despite thinking he wasn’t going to be a good president, I really never thought it would be this bad. I really hoped it would be good for race relations in this country and I felt happy for the little black teenagers calling into the morning show because they were so happy. But using this particular political tactic of shouting down dissenters is likely to have repercussions. I hope it doesn’t get any uglier, or that someone with some sense will step in and act like a grown up. I’m not betting on it, though.

It was pretty clear to a fair, but certainly not large enough, number of citizens that the press was in love with the idea that they were part of something truly historic: The election of the first black* as president of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.

And there was a real sense of power knowing that they could be a part of that.

So. They did whatever they could to Make It Happen.

As others have noted, Barack Obama did not have the experience (and perhaps the temperament?) for the position.

Now things are getting a bit rocky -- (and actually earlier than I thought they might have). The latter is probably a function of the incredible, insensitive, tone deaf ramming through Congress of huge -- HUGE -- changes to our economy and culture and American identity.

The BHO style has been to overload all our circuits and thus our critical thinking ability, but the past few months more people have caught on. Ordinary people are reading what their elected representatives, so excited were they to be Part of History, couldn't be bothered to do.

And the people have found that we, America are in deep doo doo. (And the "we" are pissed.)

Barack Obama apparently doesn't handle challenges very well where he cannot rewrite the rules his way to shut people up. (If his signature huge smile doesn't charm them.) Unseal some confidential records? Check. Disallow (black) signatures? Check. Simply refuse to play by others' rules and requirements? Check.

But the unwashed are not falling in line. We've looked at the bottom line and realize:

Health care takeover? Stimulus?Cap & Trade (Crap & Tax)? are economic and private ownership disasters waiting to happen. Maybe leftists don't mind the Federal government telling them they can't sell their house in Podunkville to someone who wants it inspite of the fact the windows don't seal, but a lot of Americans want the Federal government to Stay Out of Our Bedrooms!!!11!! And window casements. And personal health choices. And conversations. And bank accounts. And light fixtures. (Another reason to diss GWB for Republicans. What was he thinking???) etc. etc. etc.

So the classic liberal and moderate Obama voters and the media are in a really tough place. How do you disengage from the adulation of this presidency, which does not look anywhere near as promising as they had hoped? In fact it has some real messy issues, when it was supposed to be the penultimate point of American history, redeeming us from the cess pool of American Exceptionalism errr -- Racism??

How do you wish you hadn't been quite so ebullient? (Tingles up legs and all that?) How do you say, geeze, maybe we read this guy wrong? (The clues were there, buddy.)

How to do that and end up with the 44th president not being such a great deal for America?

If one was part of the Make- History!-Elect-the-First Black* President!-Movement one has to work overtime in denial.

It might have been cooler, a little, if the black candidate hadn't been Barack Obama. What a real bummer for the black community in America who invested so much in their identity in this fellow.

My guess is that instead of race becoming more of a footnote in American history, it will be enshrined to explain Obama's performance. "SBR"

Screwed By Racists (instead of by his own dark visions for a fabulous country.) Jimmy Carter should know -- after all, he's from Georgia.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to racism or sexism or antipathy to people who aren't Democrats or anti-Republican sentiment or socialist sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

He said many, I said sizable minority. I don't think they're mutually exclusive terms. I spend a lot of time south of the gnat line in small town Georgia and I can tell you the pure and open hate displayed down there is shocking.

That being said I think most them would feel the same way if Colin Powell were President like in my dreams.

Joan: I still have that argument with someone in my family regarding Palin vs. Biden. She thinks Palin sunk McCain and while I'll agree she may have repelled some independents, I believe that was largely due to the harsh treatment she got over the course of just 2 months. Biden received no such treatment, despite the fact that he's as much of a gaffe-machine, if not more so, than Palin has ever been. The media REFUSED to cover Biden - still does. For God's sake, Biden had a debilitating stroke 20 years ago which nobody is sure he's ever recovered from.

"I distinctly remember Ari Fleischman, as Bush's press secretary, sternly warning the media to be careful what they say about the president."

Then your memory is faulty. The famous "watch what they say, watch what they do" comment was in reference to Bill Maher saying that terrorists were brave while saying that members of our armed forces are cowardly.

It had nothing to do with criticism of the president and everything to do with providing propaganda to the enemy in a time of war.

"Does the fact that Joe Wilson is an outspoken supporter of flying the Confederate flag--an act that most mainstream Americans associate with racism--have any relevance?"

What do you think?

On the one hand, it has that connotation. On the other hand, reclaiming our symbolism (of whatever sort) is generally a refutation of the negative meanings and associations rather than an affirmation of them.

Not too long ago (and I realize this is a silly example) there was a television show where two "modern day Robin Hoods" took on injustice and righted wrongs in a car called the "General Lee" painted up like the confederate flag. It wasn't *about* racism, but was it racist? Could that symbolism be something other than racist? Yes, I know. It's a *very* silly example.

Not having a dog in this particular fight in any way I admit I could be missing something particularly important. Maybe there is a good reason that my serious point about reclaiming symbolism doesn't apply.

(Not precisely analogous... our local issue of Native American swastikas on Historic buildings seems to have been resolved on the "get over it already" side of expecting the offended to educate themselves and stop fussing.)

Gee, who woulda thunk that a black, liberal Chicago pol who specialized in the divisive racial politics of "community organizing" with such friends and mentors as Rev. Wright and Frank Marshall Davis, guided by the radicals, Ayres and Alinsky -- who liberally played the race card during the Presidential campaign, then surrounded himself by black radicals who accused white people of polluting black neighborhoods on purpose would turn out to be racially divisive?

"Obama is missing a HUGE opportunity. He could simply say that he respects his opposition and strongly discourage characterizing people who disagree as racist.

The fascinating question is, why doesn't he do that?"

1. Because this racism conversation is diverting the far left from their opposition to his non-single payer health insurance agenda. Having all eyes on healthcare wasn't working out so well for him, and in fact, he was losing his own base. This leads into the next item.

2. When we are fighting each other, it gives he and his congress more time to work their behind the scenes deals. It's a diversion, and we are falling for it!

Make no mistake, Obama's number one priority is what he has selected to be his legacy... health insurance for all, through government intervention.

Synova, I think being an outspoken supporter of the Confederate flag is at least relevant. And I tend to think that if you voluntarily and eagerly adopt and promote an historic and enduringly racist symbol [whether for overtly racist purposes, subtly racist purposes or antiracist rebranding purposes], then its also fair to shift the burden to you to prove that your purposes are not racist. I think heckling the first black president in an unprecedented way/venue by a Confederate-promoting conservative white South Carolinian at least reasonably raises questions.

"Decades of Senate service didn't make McCain a better candidate than he was twenty years ago"

Maybe, but the real problem was that he was still white, actually whiter, I think.

That's the the pathetic part: No experience and no accomplishment,i.e, no qualifications was ignored in order to vote by skin color and against someone who was not even running (Bush). Just pathetic, and some people should be embarrassed.

In the pews of his church, Obama heard Rev, Wright said things like this for 20 years:"“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”"

What else would Obama think?And ex-Pres. Carter is no different than Wright, really.

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

@Monty, you're really obsessed with Sons of Confederate Veterans. Are they like the Illuminati? Their web site is here and, quite frankly, their membership requirements are pretty much the same as for the DAR (except that the DAR wants women whose ancestors fought in the American Revolution, not men whose ancestors fought for the South in the Civil War).

Yeah, my grandmothers in DAR and my cousin was in some sort of daughters of the confederacy club, so, although I’m not really sure what Sons of Confederate Vets does, I’m pretty much picturing a bunch of old dudes with pins that say whatever relative fought, eating cake and punch, or sandwiches, and socializing. Like any other club ever. Maybe this is more radical, but I’d be surprised. In fact, those seem more like a geneology club than anything else.

That still misses my prior point, Montagne. A whole helluva lot of us out here are not falling off the right or the left in our political ideology. Our primary concern isn't racism or the lack thereof. Our primary concern is a government that is spending WAY beyond its means! A government that assumes we can be diverted in any number of ways, while they tap into our savings and bank accounts and charge us higher fees and ever escalating taxes while our JOBS go away.

I think actually all of this gets into a chronic problem with democracy. You see, the fundamental belief in a democracy is the majority is usually right. So logically the minority is usually wrong. This creates a schitzophrenia in the minority on any position, because by implication of democratic theory, they are probably wrong. But they reasoned it out and don’t think they are. so there is a felt need to explain that why the majority is wrong, either in this case or most of the time.

For conservatives, who think largely in moral terms, the answer is easy: when conservative views are in the minority they are morally superior to those who are in the majority.

For liberals are not as unifiedly moralistic, so they have a more divided reaction. First, many liberals think they are smarter than everyone, so the majority is wrong in their mind because they are stupid. See the “what’s wrong with Kansas” meme.

But where liberals do moralize pretty uniformly is on racial issues. They think of this issue to a large degree in moral terms, and decide that those who disagee are likely to do so because they’re immoral on the issue of race.

Obama was a bifecta on this: a brilliant black man. So their moral issue dovetailed nicely into the intellectual issue. And while I think that obama is downright incompetent on, say, economic matters, overall I would say he is a brilliant man. But the left doesn’t recognize the limits of his intellect. They just see him as so brilliant and wonderful how could anyone oppose?

The answer is to them, naturally, racism.

And the fact that right now the democrats are in power, but are having trouble with their agenda because the people are making their feelings known, puts that frustration into sharp relief.

Its crap, but that is that pathos I think this comes from.

What we really have to do is stop looking down on a person just because they have a different view than you. Mind you, some views really are execrable. Acorn, for instance, has revealed itself to be an evil organization recently and its defenders are morally bankrupt. But situations as stark as supporting the sexual abuse of children are few and far between. That’s not to say the people who disagree with you aren’t wrong. But they are not necessarily stupid, uninformed, immoral, and certainly not racist, just because they hold a certain political position and in fact they usually are none of those things.

Of course there are exceptions. FLS is a big one. He’s just a blind party hack apparently with no principles.

But no less dangerous than the accusation that opposition to the president demonstrates a lack of patriotism, and Lord knows that critics of the Bush administration had that empty charge thrown in their faces for most of the 8 years he was in office.

But isn't it sort of racist to vote for an African-American to "reflect the extent to which Americans had moved beyond racism"?

It certainly shouldn't have been the primary reason to vote for him, but had you assumed he'd be at least as good a President as McCain (which I believe was Althouse's position) then it is a perfectly valid reason to be proud of your vote, and of your country.

Personally, I believed McCain would be a bad President, but I also believed Obama would be a worse President for reasons that I think have proven to be true. Still, while I believed the majority was making a mistake, it was a mistake that made me feel good about racial progress in this country.

I'm very happy we could elect an African American to the Presidency. I just wish it hadn't been this one.

"That was part of why some people voted for him. Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism."

Why are college professors so extremely naive and benighted? Why can't you understand the simplest things about the political climate?

Where's our apology? Where's the humble admission that you'll be reconsidering your worldview now that you've been so disastrously wrong? Will you be trying harder to get it right in the future, or will you just keep making the same mistakes over and over -- cursing the rest of us to live with the results of your failure?

President Carter perking up with another predictable, refutable, argument designed avoid actual dialogue has caused me to turn my attention elsewhere -- to preparing a batch of experimental jalapeño poppers in preparation of Deena's fund raiser.

Over a year ago, Instapundit said, "I can think of no better reason to vote against Obama than the prospect of an administration where any criticism of the President is treated as racism."

MM - Is Glenn Reynolds racist too? It's not in his heritage, his father marched in Birmingham when civil rights workers were being killed. You prove the claim that all criticism in racist by pulling in anecdotes that prove your lack of objectivity as much as anything.

"Lots of people who voted for Obama believed that his election would reflect the extent to which Americans had moved beyond racism."

53% voted for Obama. Using the logic of your statement and reason for voting for Obama, that means that 53% of the country has moved beyond racism. The rest of the country has not moved beyond racism? Is that correct?

What about me. I did not vote for Obama. Besides the evidence that he was inexperienced and held far-left views, one of the reasons I did not vote for Obama was his association with the Rev. Wright and his failure to face up to the Reverend's hatred of America and the Reverend's racism against white Americans. Obama was associated with the Reverend's church for something like 20 years. The Reverend married the Obamas. Obama took his children to the reverend's church to learn about faith and life. Obama did not distance himself from the Reverend until it was politically expedient to do so.

Am I racist for holding these views and voting against Obama?

You speak against the statement of President Carter, yet your statement explaining your vote for Obama applies the same logic as Carter's statement.

Opposition is not racist. The tone, rhetoric, and disrespect FROM SOME QUARTERS do have shades of racism. Sometimes it's explicit, i.e. "The Zoo has an African Lion; the White House has a Lyni' African" and a million email forwards from old white people. I know, I get them! I don't laugh though, so like Joe Wilson I am not a racist.

I should say that what I do do when I get racist forwards is reply all to everyone in the email chain basically telling them they should be ashamed, and that if I heard it in person I'd give 'em a good sock to the nose. I wonder if Joe Wilson does the same...